Talk:Second Battle of Cape Finisterre/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 05:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments[edit]
I have to confess to being totally ignorant of this war, though I am a nerd for Napoleonic-era naval warfare thanks to the Aubrey–Maturin series of novels. I'd like to offer the following comments:
- Note in the first para of the lead where the convoy was travelling from and to
- Good point. Done.
- "isolating the French colonies from supply and reinforcement. The following year the war ended and under the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle France recovered her colonial possessions " - something is missing here, such as a reference to the colonies being captured
- Tweaked.
- "its perceived naval superiority " - it's previously noted that this superiority was a fact
- Gah. Good spot. Different sources being more or less bold about this. I'm going with Dull as that seems to reflect the consensus of the sources I have to hand.
- Did Hawke ignore his orders, or was he unaware that they existed? The article says both at present, which is confusing. The former seems much more likely given RN practices at this time.
- It is entirely clear that Hawke ignored his orders, but, obviously, he wasn't about to publicly admit this; nor was the Admiralty about to persecute a successful admiral. So everyone settled on the tissue-thin excuse of the orders being "mislaid". As there is no official record saying anything different, modern sources are in a tricky spot. I have not been able to find one which flat out states that Hawke and the Admiralty were flat out lying, but Rodger's account (he is the expert on the period IMO) drips scepticism, which I have attempted to convey. (Only Nelson could get away with the telescope trick; ten years after this battle the Brits court martialled and shot Admiral Byng for political expediency/his not sticking closely enough to his orders.)
- From checking my copy of Roger, I don't think that it supports the statement that "It seems that Hawke was not aware of their contents until the day after he found and defeated the French". The material in the previous sentence noting that he ignored the orders and acted on the basis of his own sources of intelligence reflects what Roger says really. You could change the second sentence here to note that Hawke claimed to have 'mislaid' the orders and not found them until after the battle. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Assuming you mean Rodger, my copy - 2004, hardback - does not support Hawke claiming to have mislaid his orders. It states that they were mislaid. With only a "mysteriously", and "mislaid" in inverted commas as an editorial comment.
- I think that's an overly literal reading. Anyway, the issue remains that this para says both that " Hawke was given detailed orders,[20] which he ignored. and " It seems that Hawke was not aware of their contents until the day after he found and defeated the French", which is contradictory. If different sources say different things, a solution might be to note this, but I think that Roger also supports the first sentence (there are plenty of other examples of British admirals in the age of sail era being given impractical orders before leaving port which they then disregarded or interpreted extremely flexibly). Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nick-D, apologies for the delay. This seems to be the area we are stuck on. I think that we both suspect that Hawke read his orders and then ignored them. I would love to be able to put this in the article, but can find no support for this in the source. I just don't understand your "I think that's an overly literal reading" comment. It seems to me that a source either says something or it doesn't. But maybe I am too close to it. If you could point me towards whatever parts of the source you feel could be interpreted "less-literally", I would be grateful.
- I have also repeatedly read the two sentences you feel are contradictory, and just can't see it. However, that is easy to tweak and I have rewritten that part of the paragraph. See what you think. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nick-D, apologies for the delay. This seems to be the area we are stuck on. I think that we both suspect that Hawke read his orders and then ignored them. I would love to be able to put this in the article, but can find no support for this in the source. I just don't understand your "I think that's an overly literal reading" comment. It seems to me that a source either says something or it doesn't. But maybe I am too close to it. If you could point me towards whatever parts of the source you feel could be interpreted "less-literally", I would be grateful.
- I think that's an overly literal reading. Anyway, the issue remains that this para says both that " Hawke was given detailed orders,[20] which he ignored. and " It seems that Hawke was not aware of their contents until the day after he found and defeated the French", which is contradictory. If different sources say different things, a solution might be to note this, but I think that Roger also supports the first sentence (there are plenty of other examples of British admirals in the age of sail era being given impractical orders before leaving port which they then disregarded or interpreted extremely flexibly). Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Assuming you mean Rodger, my copy - 2004, hardback - does not support Hawke claiming to have mislaid his orders. It states that they were mislaid. With only a "mysteriously", and "mislaid" in inverted commas as an editorial comment.
- From checking my copy of Roger, I don't think that it supports the statement that "It seems that Hawke was not aware of their contents until the day after he found and defeated the French". The material in the previous sentence noting that he ignored the orders and acted on the basis of his own sources of intelligence reflects what Roger says really. You could change the second sentence here to note that Hawke claimed to have 'mislaid' the orders and not found them until after the battle. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- It is entirely clear that Hawke ignored his orders, but, obviously, he wasn't about to publicly admit this; nor was the Admiralty about to persecute a successful admiral. So everyone settled on the tissue-thin excuse of the orders being "mislaid". As there is no official record saying anything different, modern sources are in a tricky spot. I have not been able to find one which flat out states that Hawke and the Admiralty were flat out lying, but Rodger's account (he is the expert on the period IMO) drips scepticism, which I have attempted to convey. (Only Nelson could get away with the telescope trick; ten years after this battle the Brits court martialled and shot Admiral Byng for political expediency/his not sticking closely enough to his orders.)
- "was able to intercept many of them in the winter of 1747–1748" - 'winter' isn't a very meaningful term to apply to the tropics
- Understood, but in naval terms of the period it was. Eg one would not sail from Europe to the West Indies - even those parts in the tropics - because of the weather in Europe. Similar for journeys the other way, perhaps more relevant here. But rephrased.
- The referencing for the order of battle section is confusing - do the refs at the end of the last entry cover all the content? It might be best to start each sub section with a sentence where the references can be placed.
- I am honestly struggling to see how this is confusing. Any chance of being more specific? It is normal for Wikipedia for a cite to cover all information since the last cite, which is what is happening here. This approach also seems to be the usual one. I could rejig it per my FA Battle of Lagos, although as all of the British vessels and all bar two of the French were ships of the line it seems to me to introduce unnecessary redundancy. I am against inserting an introdutory sentence for the sole purpose of hanging the cite off.
- The Battle of Lagos approach looks good.
- Done.
- The Battle of Lagos approach looks good.
- I am honestly struggling to see how this is confusing. Any chance of being more specific? It is normal for Wikipedia for a cite to cover all information since the last cite, which is what is happening here. This approach also seems to be the usual one. I could rejig it per my FA Battle of Lagos, although as all of the British vessels and all bar two of the French were ships of the line it seems to me to introduce unnecessary redundancy. I am against inserting an introdutory sentence for the sole purpose of hanging the cite off.
Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC) Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Nick-D and many thanks for picking this up. I have, I think, addressed all of your comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Nick-D, thanks, and back to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Nick-D and many thanks for picking this up. I have, I think, addressed all of your comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Review[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
